Comey transcript of closed-door interview with House committee released

That's a part of the problem. FISA is meant for domestic terrorists, ongoing plots, etc. That's why you'll notice in the first page they stated "ongoing or a suspected plot" but we know now that no such development was in fact.(We especially know that because two years in, not a single fact relating to Collusion has been admitted in Court.)

They didn't charge because of course they couldn't. They didn't get a normal search warrant because they lacked the evidence, and would've been thrown out of a normal court. That's why this deceit was necessary. These abuses are real and nonpolitical. Given Comey's own testimony that he wasn't ontop of virtually ANY of the developments while Director, and it's clear that his firing was more within merits than Rosenstein's letter.

 

read it and no were does it say that it was Clinton oped research or that it was never verified
prove me wrong post were the application mentions either

 

So it's not emotionally driven when you prosecute Trump for the same political purposes?

 

best you take off your partisan blinders and read it again

Comey’s confession: dossier not verified before, or after, FISA warrant
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...ier-not-verified-before-or-after-fisa-warrant

 

Steele was hired to “conduct research regarding Candidate #1,” Donald Trump, and Trump’s “ties to Russia,” and that the man who hired him was “likely looking for information that could be used to discredit [Trump’s] campaign.”

 

How long was that Republican-led Benghazi investigation? And how many criminals did it turn up?

Mueller has found criminals and he isn’t done yet. Unlike Republicans and Trumpists, he understands how to put the nation’s interests above a single party’s.

 

doesn't state who hired him now does it? and that is your claim that the court was told it was Clinton Oped research

also don't you think that is very pertinent information the court deserves to know so to make an informed decision

Comey and others committed a crime called fraud on the court by not giving all known pertinent information on that application
they only gave information that would convince the court to grant the warrant and left out the information that would have the court think twice about granting the warrant

 

wasn't a criminal investigation it was a investigation to find out why and how it happened and suggestions to keep it from happening again
Congress doesn't do criminal investigations

 

Yeah, sure. It was my grandma looking for dirt on Trump.
Edit:
And no. I think the other requests and approvals show they made the correct decision.

 

......and 100% of the Dirty Donnie Administration, any former members of the same, his family, the entire Chump organization, his entire campaign staff.........

I'm good with that !

 

Comey and others committed a crime called fraud on the court by not giving all known pertinent information on that application
they only gave information that would convince the court to grant the warrant and left out the information that would have the court think twice about granting the warrant

 

You should get this information down to the DOJ right away so they can open a case on this.

 

fyi, withholding info would be obstruction, not fraud. trump supporters should not step into that briar patch

 

I must have missed those hearings. The only ones I saw had an equal amount of democrats on the panel. Was there ever an all republican investigation I wasn't aware of? Please provide that link as the entire world is ignorant of that claim.

Oh, you mean Mueller, coming from the same FBI that just lost 25 high level officials for extreme bias, you mean that Mueller? This is where Democrats show their hypocritical
slip. You impanel an all Democrat counsel and we are supposed to believe you but if it was an all Republican counsel we would be having a different conversation. Wouldn't we.

How about this, lets impanel an equal amount of Republicans so both parties are satisfied or is that asking to much. If you were actually looking for justice, why would you knowingly impanel an all Democratic counsel when 60 million people are going to claim bias? Its because the Democrats aren't looking for justice, they are looking for revenge for a lost election. We got a real good look at Democratic revenge in the Kavanaugh hearings.

 

When we’re there mobs of delusional partisans chanting “lock HIM up?”

 

Yes, you must missed those hearings because you had your head up........well, nevermind, take your pick: there were at least 7 , and Gowdy's lasted longer than the 9/11 investigation and spent more money,

"The seven probes mentioned by Clinton include only those conducted by Congress, but there was at least one more. After the attack, Clinton convened an Accountability Review Board to investigate the incident -- something she was legally required to do. The Board’s report found no fault in the State Department for the terrorist attacks but acknowledged "systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies" that left Benghazi vulnerable. Four State Department officials were temporarily suspended and ultimately reassigned within the department.

It should be noted that each congressional committee that investigated the Benghazi attack looked into different aspects of the event. After the attack, Republican Speaker John Boehner directed the House Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Armed Services and Intelligence to investigate the issues within their jurisdictions. The House investigations were led by Republicans. Two bipartisan Senate Committees also investigated the attack.
"

 

Thats because your candidates aren't capable of drawing a crowd. The Clintons can't sell more then 15-20% in ticket sales in any of their tour locations and Obama drew about 6000 total of 3 locations during mid terms. Hard to get a mob with a few hundred people attending these democratic gods rallies.

 

May I introduce you to MSNBC, among others? Hell, what do you think these last two years have been about? There hasn't been a bigger government fail in the history of the nation. And if we impeach Trump without clear and convincing evidence of a high misdemeanor, we have served Putin's agenda completely, to undermine the US government.

All we have to do is wait till 2020, beat Trump at the polls and you'll get everything you want without serving Putin.

 

Comey doesn't "remember" because he doesn't know you know the answer. Once you demonstrate to him that you do, he caves. He's a smarmy one, for sure. One that I find incredible to believe that he was ever taken as a serious player on the board int DC.

 

you don't think I've done my research

What is Fraud on the Court?
Fraud on the Court, or Fraud upon the Court, is where a material misrepresentation has been made to the court
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/fraud-on-the-court.html

Fraud on the Court Law and Legal Definition
Fraud on the court occurs when the judicial machinery itself has been tainted, such as when an attorney, who is an officer of the court, is involved in the perpetration of a fraud or makes material misrepresentations to the court
https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fraud-on-the-court/

by not disclosing all known pertinent information to the court you are misrepresenting the martial you provided to the court hence Fraud on the Court

 

The bigger question here is who they actually serve then? Clearly, not a semi authoritarian Russia, but the old Soviet seems the greater motivator for our progressive folk. It just makes me queasy every time progressives mouth off about how bad Russia is, knowing that they dream for the good old days of the Soviet...

 

Being led by republicans means it was initiated by republicans, not exclusively investigated by republicans. That notion ain't gonna fly.
The minority Democrats on the panel released their own report of the incident in an effort to rebut the majority's conclusions and protect Clinton

The Democrats provided a 344-page report stating that the U.S. military, with its nearest support troops across the Mediterranean in Italy, could not have reached Benghazi in time to rescue the diplomats and that Clinton was actively "engaged" in dealing with the attack while it was occurring.

Democratic Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico told VOA he did not think the Republican-led investigation "was an impartial search for facts.

So a republican led investigation was not an impartial search for facts even though democrats are involved in the investigation, filed reports, and participated but an exclusive democratic investigation counsel on Trump is?

 

You haven't seen a report on him yet, have you ? I'm happy to wait and judge based on the facts.

BTW, after 7+ investigations , including Gowdy's, what was the outcome on Clinton ? You must have checked out at least 1 report.

 

You have to admit they've kept us pretty long waiting for facts for a so-called "slam dunk" case. If Trump does lose in 2020 and this all goes away, I hope that everyone screams the riot act for this perpetual embarrassment.

 

She was fairly investigated and the conclusion was no charges filed. I don't agree with the outcome but I can't bitch about it because it was concluded by both parties.
This is my point. How can you expect me or 60 million other voters to come to this same conclusion if you don't have a bi partisan investigation. Let me be clear, If we had a bi partisan investigation and they found Trump guilty of crimes worthy of removing him from office, I would support removing him even though I voted for him.

If Trump aligned with a foreign government to defraud the American people over an election and won an election because of it, I would want him burned at the stake so that no other potential candidate would ever attempt it. I don't care how much good he has done for the country.

How are you going to get me and 60 million voters to believe this if its coming from a host of Democrats. If he committed the crime they can prove it. Why waste such a finding coming from one party? I don't really think we disagree on this.